ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
June
10,
1981
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
AND
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Complainant,
PCB 77—260
A.R.F. LANDFILL CORPORATION,
an Illinois corporation,
Respondent.
NANCY J. BENNETT, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON
BEJiALF’
OF THE COMPLAINANT.
MARTIN, CRAIG, CHESTER
& SONNENSCREIN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
(MR. ROY M.
HARSCH,
OF COUNSEL), APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by N.E.Werner):
This matter comes before the Board on the October
3,
1977
Complaint brought by the People of the State of Illinois
(the “People”).
After numerous discovery motions were filed,
on April
4,
1980 the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“Agency”)
filed a t4otion
for Leave to Intervene as Co-Complainant with the People of the
State of Illinois in this case, and moved, together with the
People,
for leave to
file an Amended Complaint.
On June
6,
1980,
the Hearing Officer entered an Order which granted the Agency’s
~1otionfor Leave to Intervene as a Co—Complainant.
Count
I of the Amended Complaint alleged that, on specified
occasions between October
6,
1978 and April
4,
1980, the
Respondent,
the A.R.F. Landfill Corporation
(the “Company” or
“A.R.F.”), had
improperly operated its refuse disposal
site
(“site”)
in
that it
failed to deposit all refuse into the toe of the fill or into the
bottom of the trench in violation of Rule 303(a)
of Chapter
7:
Solid Waste Regulations
(“Chapter 7”) and Section 21(e)
of the
Illinois Environmental Protection Act
(“Act”).
Count II alleged that, on specified dates between September 15,
1978 and April
4,
1980, the Respondent failed to place adequate daily,
intermediate, and final cover on its refuse in violation of Rules 305(a),
305(b),
and 305(c) of Chapter 7 and Section 21(e)
of the Act.
42—1
—2—
Count
III alleged that,
from January
1, 1979 until April
4,
1980,
the Company operated its landfill without roads adequa~eto
allow orderly operations within the site in violation of Rule 314(b)
of Chapter
7 and Section 21(e)
of the Act.
Count III also alleged
that,
from March
31, 1979 until April
4,
1980, the Respondent
operated its landfill without adequate measures
to monitor and
control
leachate in violation of Rule 314(e) of Chapter
7 and
Section 21(e) of the Act.
Count IV alleged that,
from January
15,
1980 until April
4,
l98(~,
the Company failed to submit the requisite quarterly water
moriitoriiv’~
data as required by its Operating Permit No.
1976—22—OP in violation.
of Rule 317 of Chapter
7 and Section 21(e) of the Act.
Count V alleged that,
from September
15,
1978 until April
4,
1980, the Company “has deposited contaminants upon the land
in its
landfill in such a manner so as to create a water pollution ha~arl~~
in violation of Section 12(d)
of
the Act.
Count VI alleged that,
from September 15,
1978 until April
4,
1980, A.R.F.
failed to have sufficient equipment,
personnel
and
supervision available at the site in violation of Rule 304 of
Chapter
7 and Section 21(e) of the Act.
Count VII alleged that, from January
1,
1977 until April
4,
1980, the Company accepted hazardous wastes,
liquid wastes and
sludges at its sanitary
landfill without having obtained
the
necessary Agency permit in violation of Rule 310(b)
of Chapter
7
and Section 21(e)
of the Act.
A discovery hearing was held on March
2,
1978.
After several
prehearing conferences took place,
a hearing on the proposed
settlement agreement was held on May
5,
1981.
The parties filed
their Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement on May
5,
1981.
The Respondent owns and operates an 80 acre sanitary landfill
in the Village of Grayslake in Lake County,
Illinois which is located
near Illinois Route
83 and 137.
(Stip.
1).
During January of
1979,
the Company replaced the prior operator of this sanitary landfill
and took various positive steps to comply with the Board’s Solid
Waste Regulations and the Act.
(Stip.
2).
The parties have
stipulated that,
since January of 1979,
the Company has been in
substantial compliance with the Board’s Solid Waste Regulations
and the Act.
(Stip.
2—5;
R.
7-8).
The proposed Stipulation indicates that the Complainants now
wish to withdraw Counts
I,
III, IV, V,
and VI
of the Amended
Complaint.
(Stip.
2-4).
Additionally, the Respondent has requested
that Count VII of the Amended Complaint be dismissed because it
contends that it has not accepted liquid and hazardous wastes
without the requisite permits.
Accordingly, the Board will allow
the Complainants to withdraw Count
I,
III, IV,
V, and VI of their
Amended Complaint and will dismiss Count VII of the Amended
Cor~plairi:
as requested by the Respondent.
42—2
—3—
In reference to the cover violations which were alleged in
Count
II of the Amended Complaint, the parties have stipulated
“that Complainant’s witnesses would testify that they observed
uncovered refuse when they conducted certain inspections;
arid
that
A.R.F.’s witnesses would testify that the refuse was properly
covered on all but a few of the alleged dates.
A.R.F. would further
testify that on these few occasions, extreme weather conditions such
as excessive snowfall,
low temperatures or rainfall, prevented
normal operations to be carried out and therefore it was technically
infeasible to provide the required daily cover”.
(Stip.
2—3).
Additionally,
the parties have stipulated that the Respondent is
currently in compliance with the intermediate and final cover
requirements of Chapter
7.
“However, for purposes of this settle-
ment,
the parties agree that a technical violation of Rule 305(a)
and Section 21(e)
could be established at a hearing”.
(Stip.
3).
The proposed settlement agreement provides that the Company will:
(1) operate its sanitary landfill
in compliance with the applicable
Agency permits and applicable provisions of the Board’s Solid Waste
Regulations and the Act,
and
(2) pay a stipulated penalty of $1,000.00
In evaluating this enforcement action and proposed settlement
agreement,
the Board has taken into consideration all the facts and
circumstances in light of the specific criteria delineated in
Section 33(c) of the Act.
The Board finds the settlement agreement
acceptable under Procedural Rule 331 and Section 33(c)
of the Act.
The Board
finds that the Respondent,
the A.R.F. Landfill Corporation,
has violated Rule 305(a) of Chapter
7:
Solid Waste Regulations and
Section 21(e)
of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act.
The
stipulated penalty of $1,000.00 will be assessed against the Respondent.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board that:
1.
The Respondent,
the A.R.F. Landfill Corporation, has
violated Rule 305(a) of Chapter
7:
Solid Waste Regulations
and.
Section 21(e) of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act.
2.
Within 60 days of the date of this Order, the Respondent
shall, by certified check or money order payable to the State of
Illinois, pay the stipulated penalty of $1,000.00 which is to be
sent to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services Division
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois
62706
3.
The Respondent shall comply with all the terms and conditions
42—3
—4—
of the Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement filed May
5,
1981,
which is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
4.
The Board hereby grants the Complainants’ Motion to Withdraw
Counts I, III, IV, V, and VI of the Amended Complaint.
5.
The Board hereby grants the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss
Count VII of the Amended Complaint.
I, Christan L.
Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
herepy certify that the above Opinion and Order were adopted
on the
/6
t
day of
_____________,
1981 by
a vote of
~‘—~
/
fr~
Christan L. Moffett1 (CI~rk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
42—4